Feds won’t enter church to arrest illegal alien “activist”
posted at 10:33 pm on August 18, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You know who’d know how to handle a situation like this? Janet Reno.
Someone finally figured out a way to make church appealing to liberals:
Elvira Arellano and her 7-year-old son have been living in the Adalberto United Methodist Church since Tuesday when the 31-year-old single mother was supposed to surrender to authorities for deportation to Mexico…
Arellano was deported shortly after illegally crossing into the United States in 1997. She returned within days, living for three years in Oregon before moving to Chicago in 2000. She was arrested two years later at O’Hare International Airport, where she was working as a cleaning woman, and convicted of working under a false Social Security number.
In the years since her 2002 arrest, she has become a vocal proponent for immigration reform. Arellano, whose son is a U.S. citizen, is president of United Latino Family, a group that lobbies for families that could be split by deportation.
Kid from Brooklyn sent me this link the other day along with an angry note about how what she and the church are doing violates the Establishment Clause. Not so; only the feds can do that. Which, technically, they are doing by creating a special safe harbor from the immigration laws for places of worship. But until someone codifies it or adopts it as official policy, I’m afraid any legal challenge would be swept away under the rubric of prosecutorial discretion.
On the other hand, harboring criminals surely must place the church’s tax-exempt status in jeopardy. Not that the feds would seek to have it removed, but I wonder if they could if they so chose. Any tax lawyers out there, God help us?
Meawhile, radical immigration “activist” Nativo Lopez is organizing another marcha for, of all days, Labor Day — together with the Teamsters and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. What better way to celebrate the socialist dream than to have American workers marching alongside the one group that does more than any other to depress their wages and keep unskilled citizens unemployed?
Update: She doesn’t need the church. She needs to get to Denver.
GOP demagoguery: Yeah, our side does it too. The Democrats are running an ad about Bush’s failures on homeland security that includes a very brief segment on illegal immigration. The chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly is outraged. He shouldn’t be.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Joab grabbed the horns of the altar and was still slain. Why can’t we enter a Methodist Church and retrieve the illegal?
Bellicose Muse on August 18, 2006 at 10:51 PM
Seriously!!! Get Reno back!!! This is crazy!!!
Theworldisnotenough on August 18, 2006 at 10:52 PM
Well she has her “anchor baby” and the rest of us who want to see the law followed are bad people because “all she wants is a better life for the nino”. Well, I would like to see people like her deported but it’s not going to happen. However, I agree that these churches who harbor these illegal aliens or people who suddenly decide that they don’t want to go to war should have their tax exempt status removed. And I say th is as a Catholic who sees this happen at various Catholic churches as well. If they are harboring criminals then they are also committing crimes. Boy, can’t wait until the Labor Day Rally by more illegals. Sure wish the INS would round these people up. I know, that I am sometimes called a mean person but the law is the law and I wish to heck it would be enforced. I am tired of the “comprehensive immigration reform” garbage. Neither party wants to do anything about this problem for fear of offending the people who have to have their laundry soap in Spanish. The Balkanization of the US is in full swing and we have no one to blame but ourselves for letting these politicians (and W is amongst the biggest and the best) get away with this. Okay, off my soap box and Happy Aloha Friday to All!
Catie96706 on August 18, 2006 at 10:54 PM
Didn’t the Rastafarians try this awhile back with the pot laws? I don’t think it worked then.
speed647 on August 18, 2006 at 11:22 PM
Oh for cryin’ out loud! It’s 10:30 in the freakin’ PM! And on a Friday night too! Allahpundit, get off the computer, get on the phone, and give Mary Kay a call!
Trust me, you’ve done enough here. We’ll be fine goofing off in the comments by ourselves. Now it’s Allah time.
Go on, Tiger. Give her a call. Work that smooooooth magic.
Tomorrow you can give us all the gossip.
EFG on August 18, 2006 at 11:27 PM
Ha. She lives in DC and I live in NYC. And we’ve never so much as e-mailed.
Allahpundit on August 18, 2006 at 11:30 PM
Maybe not, but for somebody who talks like he’s been burned, you sure don’t seem to mind playing with da fiah!
Anwyn on August 18, 2006 at 11:35 PM
Eh, a little harmless blog-flirtation is good for the soul.
Who’s going to mail who first? The suspense is killing me!
Allahpundit on August 18, 2006 at 11:40 PM
I’m not Mary Kay but I’ll email ya, what the hell.
speed647 on August 18, 2006 at 11:46 PM
A little background here. I am a first-gen American, born to Puerto Rican parents. My parents understood that mastery of the English language is the key to success, and they shoved as much English-language stuff in front of me as they could. I was fully bilingual at four and a half years of age. In other words, I didn’t know how to tie my shoes, but I could read, speak, and write two languages because my parents got it (I’ll remember to bring that up at my Inaugural).
You have to admit, the double standard is interesting here. My point is, that if the Establishment Clause exists as currently interpreted, then why are religious institutions given a pass as they rewrite immigration law (or at the very least, obstruct its enforcement)? You can set your watch by the faux “Separation of Church And State” outrage every time someone puts up a Christmas tree in a public space, or every time someone so much as sneezes in the direction of Roe v. Wade. So excuse me while I call bullshit at a legitimate Clause issue. And thanks for the venue in which to discuss this issue. As opposed to the usual “coconut” smack I hear from my liberal betters.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 18, 2006 at 11:50 PM
Now, in all seriousness, on with the Arellano and her kid debate.
Let’s face it. Things like this are heart wrenching. And they aren’t going to go away. Multiply this by millions, and you get an idea of what full blown enforcement and deportation will entail. Nobody wants to be cracking down on kids like her son.
So, what to do? This is why I think the border fence and preventing immigration from getting past the borders in the first place is so important. Build the dang fence! Seriously, it is a win / win situation for us. It reduces illegal immigration, and reduces the number of cases like this.
I think that the best route is to build the fence/improve interdiction of illegal aliens.
So what to do about the illegals that are here already? I think we should have close cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement, and the turn over of illegals who are arested for crimes to the appropriate deportation agency. This way we weed out the violent and anti-social. Have a very low tolerence for law violations.
What about those who are here illegally, but not doing any other crimes? I say leave them alone for the most part. DON’T offer citizenship, or any path towards naturalization. Just let them stay quietly, as long as they aren’t actively causing problems. As far as welfare benefits or education subsidies, no. Forget it. The only benefit I wouldn’t cut is the ability of children to go to elementary and high school. I have no intention or interest in trying to go after kids. As far as emergency medical services, well, that is something I am up in the air over. Certainly, if an illegal is hit by a car, I wouldn’t advocate turning him away from the doors of a hospital and letting him bleed to death. Gotta do the right and humane thing and treat him. But what about afterwards? I’m not sure. I know that illegals have put a huge strain on hospital budgets. So enforcing immigration law in the hospitals would cut down on that. But is it worth it? Would hospitals cooperate? Would we end up with some humanitarian nightmare backlash where illegal mothers are giving birth in appartments without medicial attention because of fear of deportation? That would be bad. Real bad. Still, we gotta cut down alot on the social benefits we offer illegal aliens.
Hopefully, building a fence, aggressive deportation of law breakers and serious cutbacks on social benefits will be enough to cut back on our illegal alien problem.
Plus crack downs on firms who hire illegals,…yada yada yada.
Ok, I’ve run my suck for long enough.
Just my two cents.
EFG on August 18, 2006 at 11:50 PM
Hey Kid, correct me if I’m wrong, but your parents are from Puerto Rico, but they’re Americans too, right? I mean, I think they are American Nationals, as opposed to American Citizens, but you know what I’m getting at. Or am I off base here?
I’ve worked with a bunch of Samoans who are Nationals as opposed to Citizens. I always figured Puerto Ricans were the same.
Anyway, the Samoans I knew rocked. It always made me want to go visit American Samoa some day.
EFG on August 18, 2006 at 11:54 PM
*chortle* What I want to know is how a woman apparently about ten years younger than I, if her college graduation year is safe to go by, pulls ’80s Foreigner off YouTube and turns it to her advantage …
… okay, okay, if we really have to get back to The Illegal of Notre Dame … That’s freaking ridiculous. Go in and get her out.
Anwyn on August 18, 2006 at 11:57 PM
EFG is right, get that damn fence built the full length of our Southern border, a big, high, wide and impregnable fence – NOW! Not just for the Mexicans and other Hispanics, but the terrorists and their ilk.
I don’t want to be insentive to these poor people and I blame our government for their plight; no, not just Bush but every president, senator and congressman for the past 4+ decades for not making our border secure and keeping them out in the first place. Also, I am sorry, but send these two back and every illegal alien, without trial and without any lengthy process. Catch them all and immediately throw thier butts across the border.
I know that is harsh, but we have to stop this crap now or lose our sovereignty and maybe our lives!
Or, we can solve the immigration issue and high gas prices at the same time: We can hire illegals for less money than it takes for a gallon of gas and then let them push our cars for awhile.
Umnumzana on August 19, 2006 at 12:03 AM
Waitasecond. I just aged myself four years. Or youngened her up four years, take your pick. Mary K’s college grad is 10 years after my *HS* grad, not my college. Big diff. Bleargh. Makes her six years younger than me. Ish.
Anwyn on August 19, 2006 at 12:08 AM
Well, once I know either your HS grad date, or Mary K’s college grad date, it all might click.
As it is,…I’ve got no idea.
Ah, I’m droping this whole topic. It seems to be fraught with hazzards for me, with very little potential upside.
Anyway….back to the topic at hand?
EFG on August 19, 2006 at 12:20 AM
I’m sorry but this person made her choice – of her own free will – when she decided to violate our immigration laws and enter the US illegally.
Now when it comes to pay the piper she screams sanctuary? Bullshit. Storm the church take her. – and arrest anyone who interfears for obstruction of justice – including the pastor and any other church officials.
We need to take a stand now – this will set a precident and now every illegal will expect sanctuary.
CrazyFool on August 19, 2006 at 12:27 AM
Not by much. They are statutory U.S. Citizens (as opposed to natural-born, like you and me). But English is rarely, if at all, spoken there. It is like a totally different country. Trust me. I’ve lived there. Most new arrivals go through as much assimilation anxiety as anybody else from Latin America, minus the INS hassle.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 19, 2006 at 12:35 AM
Nevermind, I’m past caring myself. My only point was that she’s a bit young for that music. I already delivered my opinion on the church thing. If we’re getting into general views on illegal immigration, deportation, and the whole nine yards, it’ll wait until I’ve eaten my dessert. :)
Anwyn on August 19, 2006 at 12:37 AM
Hey, Kid, you got it right.
I’m a Puerto Rican transplant, born and raised in the island. Been living in the States for about 10 years now. One detail you forgot to mention, though, is that Puertoricans take English classes all the way from first grade to 12th grade, so the English comes to us quicker because we have the basics. Although, you’ll always find some that don’t feel comfortable in the gringo world and won’t leave the Spanish-speaking PR enclaves. But that’s another story.
Back to topic,
I work with the Federal Law enforcement, and this whole deal reeks to me of a Public Relations move. “We won’t go in. The press will slaughter us.” You know what? If I were the US Attorney, I would go in, arrest, and apologize to the church about it afterwards. But one of those half-hearted apologies, you know. The kind that says, “Mess with criminals, and you’ll be stained too.”
batperez on August 19, 2006 at 1:26 AM
Why shouldn’t she break the law since the President refuses to enforce the existing ILLEGAL Immigration laws already on the books?
I might vote this year, but my heart won’t be in it, and I’ve been glad to share that tidbit with every damn republican party advocate that has called me for a donation. I also told them to go hit up an ILLEGAL for my donation since that is where my money went via Bush.
Too many republicans consider me to be as stupid as a liberal. You would think they would wise up with the polling numbers being SO in favor of change this year.
DannoJyd on August 19, 2006 at 2:53 AM
Hey DannoJyd, I’ve been saying the same thing to those who have been calling from George Allen’s campaign (even though I live in HI, we still vote in VA). You’re not stupid, you’re just fed up like most of us. Neither side has done a damn thing about this stupid problem.
Catie96706 on August 19, 2006 at 3:08 AM
Listening to Hannity discussing with this alleged preacher this afternoon, I was struck with one of my usual thoughts. What happened to Separation of Church and State? Is not this Church making a political statement if not interferring with enforcement of existing laws by harboring this woman knowing she is in violation of the law?
Isn’t it the ACLU that is wanting churches to stay out of political matters?
We wouldn’t have a double standard here, would we?
LewWaters on August 19, 2006 at 3:16 AM
Well, LET the church feed and clothe her and her kid. At least the taxpayers aren’t. And let the church pay all and her kid’s health care costs as well!! After a while of the bills mounting up, that church will be glad to get rid of the beggar.
gary on August 19, 2006 at 7:23 AM
If this continues to work for Arellano, how many others will adopt the strategy? How many will each church allow to move in? How many can they take before they start having trouble being a church?
This isn’t going to last too long.
Pablo on August 19, 2006 at 9:25 AM
Can anyone say 15 min of Fame?! The real issue needs to be that she came back after being deported last time. She is a criminal and needs to be treated as such. If you or I were to try claim sanctuary in a church they would storm in and take us. That is BS arrest her and send her away/Lock her up whatever.
umbergbr on August 19, 2006 at 10:19 AM
She has repeatedly broken our immigration laws. AS much as it tugs on ones heart strings, leniency for her would just encourage more illegals to flock to churches or have more “anchor babies”.
She should be made to suffer the consequences of her actions, which is nothing more than going back to her home country.
Congress should immediately amend the constitution to prevent “anchor babies” from gaining immediate U.S. citizenship upon birth. If you are borne of an illegal mother, you do not become an American citizen.
darwin on August 19, 2006 at 10:44 AM
That was an intentional omission. Outside of professional circles, knowledge of English, IMO, is considered a form of “selling out”; tangible evidence of submission to the “Empire”. If you went to school in the PR public system, you studied nationalist authors in Spanish class, right after 50 minutes of half-assed English class. Furthermore, you know how the insular culture beats its chest and proclaims “national pride” every time a local girl wins Miss Universe, or every time a local boxer wins a belt. So although English is taught in the public system, its daily use is largely discouraged and stigmatized. Outside of professional, military, and law enforcement circles, few island-dwelling Puerto Ricans have any incentive to learn English; and most view it as some form of cultural capitulation to the Imperial Master. I live in Orlando,(which for purposes of Puerto Rican migration patterns, is the new New York) and I see it every day.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 19, 2006 at 11:07 AM
…but I digress. Our elected hacks in the District of Crack lack the sack to treat the illegal immigration issue as a national security issue, choosing instead, for the sake of political expediency, to frame it as a civil rights issue. This issue is very easily solved.
First, fence the entire border. Seal it up, and carve out about another 100 yards inland for checkpoints and whatnot. No border rancher is going to object to having some of his land eminent domained if it means an electrified fence on the other side.
Second, tax the hell out of wire transfers into Mexico and Central America. Make the enablers bleed for their free money.
Third, subject employers of illegal aliens to total seizure of their businesses and jail time, no questions asked, first offense.
The key is to make conditions unbearable for illegals, and their enablers.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know…go ahead and sell me that bridge now.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 19, 2006 at 11:18 AM
coconut” smack
KID, what is that?
I agree mostly with EFG. I also am enraged each time a church becomes involved in LAW. This is makes me NUTS. I say if a church involves itself in politics or something of this nature, the INS reviews them immediately and revokes their tax exepmt status!
BTW..ALLAHPUNDIT: You should have been at my house last evening when the prettiest little commie socialist I have ever seen knocked on my door pimping ACORN. She was so confused by the time she was finally allowed to leave, she just might turn around! *lol* Poor kid, I know she wishes she had passed my house and I am glad my husband wasnt home!
labwrs on August 19, 2006 at 11:30 AM
“Coconut” is a pejorative term aimed at hispanics who are perceived to have “sold out”, or who are believed to “act white”. Coconuts, as you know, are brown on the outside, and white on the inside. Telltale signs include mastery of the English language, total assimilation into the United States, and personal conservative ideology.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 19, 2006 at 11:39 AM
DARWIN-
THEY ARE ILLEGAL !!! We’ve just been ‘overlooking them. Anchor babies is a term for illegal babies that get to stay.
READ HERE: 14th Amendment ;Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
They broke the law, mom , mom and dad, whoever. Only if ONE parent is legal is the child legal.
The kid and mom holed up in the church are both ILLEGAL ALIENS.
She sneaks across at least twice, been thrown back once and broke the law at least 4 times that I know. Stole a SS # and worked illegaly at an AIRPORT!
Send her and the kid back. What will this start if we do not.
shooter on August 19, 2006 at 11:45 AM
P.S. Someone finally figured out a way to make church appealing to liberals:
Now THAT’S a classic!
shooter on August 19, 2006 at 11:48 AM
Kid,
How disgusting is that? I have of course heard “oreo” and “twinkie” is getting thrown around a lot because of the Ga Tech ruling this week but had never heard “coconut” *sigh* Your parents were right and knew how to succeed and they did apparently!
When I went to live in France there were no forms printed in anything BUT French. I had an interview at the local police department (you must go there to register to live in your neighborhood) and I had to pay an interpreter out of my own pocket, there was no government subsidy. The French think (rightly!) if you want to live in their country , you should speak French. Beginning and end of subject.Now that very attitude of “English first” here is condisered bigoted and racist. When one of the counties in GA tried to require English alongside any signage in a language other than English all HECK broke loose!
It was “racist” to force people to use English on their signage in America. Simply amazing and a recipe for disaster long overdue for correction.
labwrs on August 19, 2006 at 11:51 AM
shooter: I share your outrage and perceptions. It is infuriating! I heard the part about her stealing the SS# as well. These people think nothing of breaking our laws as they dont consider them relevant. We must keep in mind that most of them are from countries who wink at the rule of law but rarely enforce it.
labwrs on August 19, 2006 at 11:54 AM
labwrs- very true.
But WE are a nation OF LAWS. Our very freedom depends on it.
You can NOT have free people with out laws, and alien immigrant law breakers are a cancer that devours from within.
shooter on August 19, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Free people without laws , or free people with outlaws…U pick.
shooter on August 19, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Shooter
You are so right about the 14th amendment but our Politicians seem to think that the Constitution is whatever they think it says.
I say deport the Illegals, all of them including the little anchor baby.
I have zero sympathy for these people. They are criminals getting away with breaking our laws.
ScottyDog on August 19, 2006 at 12:16 PM
Build all the fences you want. If there are jobs to be had, people will find a way. If we are serious we go after the employers.
All this English language stuff strikes me as slightly foolish. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the % of immigrants (legal and illegal) today is about 11.5%. Contrast this to the peak year of 1910 when that % was 14.8%. You know a lot of 3rd or 4th generation folks who still speak Italian or German or Russian?? When did we lose faith in the ability of our system and our culture to incorporate immigrants?
People will learn English–it’s survival of the fittest. Signage in two languages where there are lot of people who speak only or mostly Spanish–what’s the big deal? Some things like public safety and unfettered commerce trump the need to pretend we have control over immigration by passing silly laws.
honora on August 19, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Honora:
Silly laws allow you to live free, for now. I do know this percentage…100% of Illegal Aliens Are here ILLEGALY… how’s them apples?
shooter on August 19, 2006 at 1:00 PM
Sorry Honora, “silly laws” like making signage readable to the MAJORITY of the people who LIVE here? This IS America and whether you like it or not, English IS the language of the Land. It is one more small erosion of our culture of assimilation. “silly laws” like legally immigrating? *sigh* slippery slopes abound.
labwrs on August 19, 2006 at 1:03 PM
BTW KID FROM BROOKLYN:
I will take the boys from Columbus, Ga over your Staten Island, NY boys in the Little League World Series! Bet you a peach to an apple!
labwrs on August 19, 2006 at 1:05 PM
Honora’s is just a drive by, we shouldn’t humor it.
shooter on August 19, 2006 at 1:05 PM
In one news coverage of this, I heard her quoted that she could not tear her child from his country.
Who freaking owns this child? You, the mother, or the State?
I would have no trouble tearing my freaking child away. Especially if the State is claiming ownership.
Do you see how they are changing the argument. These children are ‘Americans’. They belong to America, not us the parents. We cannot harm these children by ripping them from the tender breast of the Mother that nurses them – the State – which is more precious then my own DNA.
My response: yada yada spin spin yada yada.
Where are those ELian swat troopers. Get them over there fast, and re-matriate the child, and re-patriate the mother. These people should be first in line out the door.
They are redefining our country down.
Thieves!
When the kid hits 18, we can vet him before deciding to let him back in.
entagor on August 19, 2006 at 1:40 PM
Hiya Catie. I’m happy to hear from another who is fed up at the damn foolishness of certain republicans holding public office, and glad to know that our message might get noticed.
I cannot fault our House members on the ILLEGAL Immigration issue, but I’m not real happy about the stance taken by some of them when the FBI entered Jefferson’s office to search for more evidence concerning his ofence of taking bribes. Between those in the Senate who desire to make life more comfortable for the ILLEGALS at MY expense, and the House members trying to shield a reported criminal, I often wonder if it is worth the effort to go vote. I can discount Bush due to him not being on the ballot, but liberals will be much more sanguine if they take back the power, and thus start IMPEACHMENT proceedings.
I can live with that.
DannoJyd on August 19, 2006 at 2:26 PM
Labwrs said: “I also am enraged each time a church becomes involved in LAW. This is makes me NUTS. I say if a church involves itself in politics or something of this nature, the INS reviews them immediately and revokes their tax exepmt status!”
1st: I am against this Church, in this situation, granting asylum to this illegal immigrant and her child.
2nd: Apparently, you do not believe people of faith have any rights under the Constitution to try and affect our laws, based on their beliefs? Which means, according to your beliefs, they are disenfranchised and denied rights of Free Political Speech and Freedom to practice their faith according to the dictates of their consciences?
3rd: This may be personally satisfying to you, atheists in both parties and those accepting the lie of ‘Separation of Church and State;” but like most things in this life that path produces unintended consequences. It was mostly Christians and the Church which provided sanctuary for Jews and saved many lives during WW-II under the Nazi Regime. It was mostly Christians and the Church that provided sanctuary for African Slaves in this country before and during the Civil War, saving many lives. So, while this woman and her child, as illegal aliens, may not be your cup of tea; when you say the Church must stay out of our Laws, you may find one day that people you do believe need such sanctuary are denied that chance.
4th: As to the Tax Exempt status of the Church, as a Christian I don’t believe my tithes and offerings to the Church deserve special exemption; except the Church is the primary source of charitable enterprises and giving in this country and for those in need around the world. So, cut their tax exempt status and you may find that because of it charitable organizations and giving will decrease to the harm of those in need.
This is not on attack on you, rather I am just sharing my views on this subject.
Umnumzana on August 19, 2006 at 2:40 PM
The ACLU, the Churches and the Unions have formed a trifecta which panders to the illegal aliens.
Here’s what’s coming, again. I say “keep it up until late Oct. 2006 to wake up the conservative voters in this country.
Danno, my friend, that includes you too! I agree with your disappointments and with telling them off (I do the same). I disagree with you 100% on considering not to vote. We don’t have the luxury to put up for a while with the libs until things get even worse. We need to fight a WOT. In addition, one of the first things a lib majority would do, is pass a blank Amnesty bill.
This will rattle many of you, but I hope you understand me well. You will hear me harp on this until Nov. this year and then again until Nov. ‘08.
“Shut up and vote” will have to be our mantra, like it or not. The alternative is DANGEROUS!
Entelechy on August 19, 2006 at 3:28 PM
Umnumzana :
Being a Christian who is very supportive of Faith based initiatives, etc I simply disagree with you. Churches should be ministering to their communities and not involved in breaking the law.
An example is the involvement of the Catholic Church in CA during the recent illegal immigrant protests. I think people of Faith should vote their Faith BUT as soon as a Church takes a political stand (eg: inviting polticial candidates to make speeches on Sunday morning which they do ALL the time in the South!) you LOSE your right to be tax exempt. Churches and their congregations SHOULD speak out on things but when they enter the political arenas and begin encouraging people to break the laws of the land then they lose their protected status of being tax exempt. That is my point.
I appreciate yours but we shall just have to agree to disagree about the involvment of churches in such things.
ENTELECHY: You are RIGHT ON! We simply dont have the luxury of a no-vote protest this year. Too much is at stake..namely our lives!
labwrs on August 19, 2006 at 3:37 PM
labwrs: First, I said “I am against this Church, in this situation, granting asylum to this illegal immigrant and her child.”
2nd: I agree that using the pulpit for political speeches or candidates disqualifies a church for tax exempt status.
3rd: I also agree to a point that: ‘when they enter the political arena and begin encouraging people to break the laws of the land then they should lose their protected status of being tax exempt.’
3rd: On the other hand, outside the area of tax exempt status, the Church has often broken the laws of the Land, a. Nazi Germany, b. During the Civil War, and c. during the Civil Rights movement for the good of the country. If such civil disobedience causes them to lose their tax exempt status, that is the price they have agreed to pay for what they believe is a greater good.
4th: Nonetheless, with the exception of tax exempt status, the Church should not be excluded from the public square, even in the matter of political speech or trying to change the minds of the people to change laws they feel are not good for the country.
Umnumzana on August 19, 2006 at 4:07 PM
Did you just call out the Kid???? I’ll see your peach, and raise you a pie.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 19, 2006 at 4:08 PM
I apologize for not responding sooner; but “Boston Massacre, part Deux” is on Fox 35 right now. ;)
Kid from Brooklyn on August 19, 2006 at 4:12 PM
Entelechy, it is always a pleasure to hear [?!?!] your viewpoint, and I do understand your message, but I wish to reiterate that I am NOT a tool for the republican party to be used as they see fit. Instead, I am an American who demands the best for his country, rejects those who would do the USA harm, and my wish is to force this message Right Down the Throats of elected republicans until they are forced to wake up, and smell their own KOS.
I didn’t bust my arse in the 04 election as a poll watcher for almost 24 hours in order to see those I supported go off, and play politics with the future of my country. I will not expend my efforts to guarentee their continuance of their own agenda, which apparently is to remain in power just for the perks they get. NO [bush word] politician will earn my vote by selling out the ideas I hold dear. Let the ILLEGALS, and crooks decide their future as this is what their efforts will ensure.
A honest politician is defined as one who stays bought. Too many conservative politicians have been dishonest with me.
Give me a reason to vote. Tell me how America will be protected by my casting my vote. EARN my vote, or get ready to join the looong line of LOSERS. America will survive either way.
Scare tactics don’t work on me. Save those for the liberal robots, and this message is intended for the scuzzy politicians, not for anyone posting here. ;o)
DannoJyd on August 19, 2006 at 4:54 PM
KID..you owe me a bushel! :) Go GEORGIA Little Leaguers!
Final score: Columbus, GA 3 Staten Island, NY 2
It was a GREAT game and your kids played with heart and determination. Too bad one had to win..glad it was us! *lol*
labwrs on August 19, 2006 at 6:54 PM
Umnumzana
I never said the Church should be excluded from public debate. What I object to is the politization of the church itself. As I said, when you bring candidates on the pulpit to make a campaign speech, that is WRONG.
When the Church encourages breaking the laws of the land..that is WRONG.
I understand where you are coming from about the Church being a moral voice speaking out against injustices..I am ALL FOR THAT in their role as MORAL voices. Once they step into political or judicial actions, then they should be considered political or activist parties and therefore subjected to paying their commercial taxes. Speak all you want but if you do, pay your fair share.
labwrs on August 19, 2006 at 7:08 PM
Danno, I feel for your frustration. I just took my neighbor to the airport and yelled at him for 30 miles into San Diego, at how ’stupid’ our conservatives are. He’s conservative too and has influence with Wash. in some quarters and I kept saying “wake them up!”. He admitted too that they need to “CTL + ALT + DEL”, as Bryan suggested on the war, and get going with clear heads toward Nov. ‘06.
I count on you to let them have it, to voice your frustration, to not support them financially, but in the end to vote, and to vote with us. We need you on our side. The alternative scares me witless and we’ll discuss, as the election day nears.
Kid said:
In other words, those who succeed! I thought only Blacks act like that. Some day both groups will wake up, and realize that lately nothing has been done for them, except pandering and taking them for granted, and the dems will never win anything again.
P.S. I’m also from a Latin country and was happy to read what your background is. I adore the Spanish language!
Entelechy on August 19, 2006 at 7:32 PM
fafaf
kaskkgj
Entelechy on August 19, 2006 at 7:33 PM
adkkasfaf
Entelechy on August 19, 2006 at 7:35 PM
all right, Allah or someone who knows, what command gets rid of the: strong and italics, or other?
Thanks ahead.
Entelechy on August 19, 2006 at 7:36 PM
Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles stated that he would disrespect any U.S. law which would make it illegal for illegals to stay here.
Labwrs, this is what I believe you are trying to convey and I agree with you and Umnumzana. Churches have helped in the past and will continue to do so. They also have a right to influence politics. Labwrs is, however, right. If they preach politics overtly from the pulpit, the tax excempt status s/b out. What irritates me to no end is another liberal doubble-standards, that they s/b allowed to do so, if it’s in their favor, but not ours. Myriad of examples…
I believe the ACLU and the left are once again hypocritical, in this case. If the Bush Admin. would go in, we wouldn’t hear the end of it on how “Church and State” were not separate, bla, bla, bla…
The Churches pander to this group for new ‘lambs’.
The Unions pander to this group for new members, even though it hurts their existing ones (but why run after a bus, you’re alredy sittin in?)
The ACLU, is who it is and if it hurts the Bush Admin. it must be worth pursuing.
The liberals are for breaking any laws, so long as it brings them more sheep to vote for them.
Entelechy on August 19, 2006 at 7:50 PM
Not so fast there Missy!
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Last updated 6/2/06
[b]“the author of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Would the fourtenth ammendment be clarified.
How many who have taken from America unrightfuly, be then eligible for deportation?
Would abuse of our Constitution be allowed to continue?
Speakup on August 19, 2006 at 8:41 PM
As usual Entelechy says it more sucinctly than do I..thanks!
Speakup ..great post! And now..good nite!
labwrs on August 19, 2006 at 9:19 PM
WTFrack?!?! I post a bit of an angry vent, and every post following goes bold? Call it proof that computers do comprehend strong emotion. I’ll start this post with a /strong, and a /em to see if that corrects things.
Entelechy, As a registered resident of Michigan I have good reason to vote this year, but I’ll remain disgusted with those Washington traitors.
Flip a coin. That is about as good a measure as any in deciding if I’ll make the effort to vote this year as long as elected republicans continue to act like LOSERS.
DannoJyd on August 20, 2006 at 12:54 AM
Dayumn! I’m good!
DannoJyd on August 20, 2006 at 12:55 AM
Danno, you are good! Thanks for the tip/s on html.
You need to vote to throw out the ‘wunderlady’ of Michigan.
I reiterate haw much I sympathize with your frustration, down to the items you previously listed.
And still…you said the “U.S. will survive either way”, it matters in which state. Could be even more horrifying.
Keep fighting and let’s keep talking. I like that you actually do something about it, helping and harping at them, when needed.
Entelechy on August 20, 2006 at 6:49 AM
Politicians are like kiddies in a candy store after a few months inside of DC. They need to be spanked when they start getting carried away, but sometimes even that doesn’t help which is why term limits continue to be a valad issue.
I learned HTML when getting involved in the Delphi Forums 6 years ago. As I am not one to be content to sit by while others do the hard work, I’ve managed to work y way up to the point where I ‘inhereted’ 2 Delphi Forums which I honestly have no idea what to do with.
Look at the long picture. IF the liberals manage to regain all of congress [worst case scenario] then they will be responsible for their actions over the next 2 years, and it looks as if they intend to go radical. America doesn’t like radical, and that should result in Republicans retaining the White House, and getting back congress. Maybe.
Cigarman was a disaster held in check by Americans for 8 years. The political process works, and thus I sleep well at night. ;o)
DannoJyd on August 20, 2006 at 2:57 PM
Testing to see if the html fracks up again
DannoJyd on August 20, 2006 at 2:58 PM
GOP hope in Michigan - Danno, you might want to peruse…
Entelechy on August 20, 2006 at 11:32 PM
Like I said before, if they earn my vote they will get it.
It looks as if AAARRRnuuld is getting the message.
DannoJyd on August 21, 2006 at 1:36 AM
Comment pages: